|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 12:59:12 GMT -6
Hmph. 22'' of turret armor on that last one and 16'' belt?... Well, maybe my design principles are different, but I'd rather have thicker decks...you're giving belts and turret armor that no BB other than the yamatos shipped around while there were WW1 designs with stronger decks... (I personally aim for at least 7'' of deck, 7.5'' when possible, belt and turret armor are decided after that) 7" or even more of deck armour seems mě a waste of tonnage. It is much more any 16" guns used by AI can penetrate. And practical range is even closer.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 13:07:31 GMT -6
Hmph. 22'' of turret armor on that last one and 16'' belt?... Well, maybe my design principles are different, but I'd rather have thicker decks...you're giving belts and turret armor that no BB other than the yamatos shipped around while there were WW1 designs with stronger decks... (I personally aim for at least 7'' of deck, 7.5'' when possible, belt and turret armor are decided after that) 7" or even more of deck armour seems mě a waste of tonnage. It is much more any 16" guns used by AI can penetrate. And practical range is even closer. mid-1930s 16'' (qual 0) already pen in excess of 6.5'' of armor at max range (30000 yards). 7'' is the bare minimum if you want your immunity zone to reach max range. with 7.5'' you keep out anything but 20''. I consider it the minimum standard once AI begins completing ships with guns bigger than 16''.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 13:23:55 GMT -6
7" or even more of deck armour seems mě a waste of tonnage. It is much more any 16" guns used by AI can penetrate. And practical range is even closer. mid-1930s 16'' (qual 0) already pen in excess of 6.5'' of armor at max range (30000 yards). 7'' is the bare minimum if you want your immunity zone to reach max range. with 7.5'' you keep out anything but 20''. I consider it the minimum standard once AI begins completing ships with guns bigger than 16''. But why would I want immunity zone to max. range? It is too expensive and such hit is very very unlikely. Much more likely is shorter range due to worse weather.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 13:39:23 GMT -6
The limited ranges imposed by bad weather or night ranges are so short that there's no reliable way to armor your ship. Again, mid 1930s 16'' guns go through 16'' of belt armor already under 13000 yards, bad weather usually forces battles to much less than that. Providing vertical protection that guarantees no pens at those distances is just not practical. You'll end up in scenarios of vulnerable ship vs vulnerable ship.
Conversely armoring for long ranges (those you will be fighting at during daytime) is far more practical in the sense that not many AI ships carry the kind of armor that will stop your shells while you do. It's a vulnerable ship vs an invulnerable ship in practical terms, it's also easier tactically to just keep range at the maximum possible (Vs engaging within a limited ring), and evolved FCSs of endgame produce reliable hits at those ranges anyway (First hand experience here with it).
|
|
|
Post by entropyavatar on Jun 28, 2019 13:47:25 GMT -6
A heavier deck also helps with bomb hits.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 13:50:58 GMT -6
Conversely armoring for long ranges (those you will be fighting at during daytime) is far more practical in the sense that not many AI ships carry the kind of armor that will stop your shells while you do. It's a vulnerable ship vs an invulnerable ship in practical terms, it's also easier tactically to just keep range at the maximum possible (Vs engaging within a limited ring), and evolved FCSs of endgame produce reliable hits at those ranges anyway (First hand experience here with it). Even in good weather you're not going to be fighting at more than about 25,000 yards for any significant amount of time with any significant frequency; you're too unlikely to score hits at extreme ranges even with the best fire control systems and radars in the game, radar range even in the late '40s probably only goes out to about 30,000 yards, and sighting range is likely significantly less than that even in good weather. More likely you'll be fighting the majority of a late-game engagement somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 yards, or possibly even closer if you handle your ships aggressively, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of your hits are going to be scored at those ranges whereas virtually none will be scored at extreme range.
Also, the battleship that thecallidus posted is not suitable for a long-range late-game engagement anyways - with only 80 rounds per gun it doesn't have the ammunition stocks necessary, and at 23 knots it has no realistic ability to control the engagement range past perhaps the late 1920s, at best.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 14:14:40 GMT -6
Your 2nd model posted in the screenshot is good for 28 knots. That's good enough to control the engagement against most things it'll face. It carries 115 rpg, which is perfectly acceptable for a battleship. I disagree with "you're not going to fight at more than 25.000 yards". You're going to fight at the range you choose to fight at, as long as you have enough speed to keep the range (and again 28 knots for a BB is good enough against most adversaries). Also, you're extending your invulnerability zone inwards aswell. It isn't as if you can't allow your ship to get a bit closer - but the optimum goal (from my point of view) is to achieve a given range of immunity and extend it as far as gun range can reach. And for the record I've fought whole battles at ranges over 28000 yards and seems my ships didn't get the memo about being only able to hit very few times. They certainly hit enough. My current spanish savegame BB, 1937 design (ordered in the UK due to the unready industrial status of Spain): Essentially invulnerable at any range that's not under 18000 yards for up to 18'' caliber guns and probably more (can't say about 19 or 20'', as I don't have them yet I can't see the invulnerability zone against those).
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 14:22:24 GMT -6
And for the record I've fought whole battles at ranges over 28000 yards and seems my ships didn't get the memo about being only able to hit very few times. They certainly hit enough. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 14:29:13 GMT -6
And for the record I've fought whole battles at ranges over 28000 yards and seems my ships didn't get the memo about being only able to hit very few times. They certainly hit enough. Prove it. Try it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 14:41:55 GMT -6
I have. My finding is that it doesn't work.
Also, if this is something that happens so commonly for you, surely it should be trivial for you to go fight such an engagement and provide logs demonstrating all these 25,000+ yard hits you're scoring with such regularity.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 14:53:54 GMT -6
Ship can handle couple of penetrating hits quite easily especially battlehips over 50000 tons.
I have no opened game with this technology, but I will just show 2 % chance of hit at that range. Ship has 990 shells, so it is about 20 hits. It is easily handled by 50000 tons battleship if there is no lucky hit. How many hits would be on deck? Only lucky hit that can blow ship is magazine as armouring turrets enough is easy. But probability of hitting magazine in RTW seems quite low.
Now do same comparision to another alternatives as more guns, better vertical protection, saving money.
I have loaded old save limited by lvl 21 in 1956. 55000 tons battleship with 6" deck protecting her almost at 27000 yards against 16Q1 guns costs 194M. Going to 7" deck armour costs 212M. It is 9 % increase of costs. Add random of penetration and may be fighting at extreme range about 28-30000 yards, you get 2 more penetrating deck armour hits. It is not worth the money.
If anybody has hit chance at 29000 yards, we can get better result.
But I would suggest take chance when both ships change the course as there is no way how to stay at that distance without changing course frequently.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Jun 29, 2019 3:18:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 29, 2019 8:29:51 GMT -6
I'll admit that attempting to make your battleship invulnerable has a certain attraction. It is interesting as an experiment but it seems like a very large waste of resources, at least in RTW2.
I have to assume you guys are playing RTW2 with no aircraft carriers because as long as I have a few carriers I have no problem taking out the enemy battleline with rebuilt 1920s era BBs with 12" of armor. Slapping on 7" of deck armor or 16" of belt armor would be complete overkill in any RTW2 game I have played. These ships can't improve on underwater protection, making them just as vulnerable to aerial torpedo attack as a battlecruiser. As far as I have seen the AI builds carriers, not super battleships and carriers in RTW2 appear to be the perfect counter to a super battleship, just as they were in real life.
For myself, I'd take the money for all that excess steel and build another carrier, but then everyone has their own goals and style of play.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 29, 2019 10:27:40 GMT -6
I'll admit that attempting to make your battleship invulnerable has a certain attraction. It is interesting as an experiment but it seems like a very large waste of resources, at least in RTW2. I have to assume you guys are playing RTW2 with no aircraft carriers because as long as I have a few carriers I have no problem taking out the enemy battleline with rebuilt 1920s era BBs with 12" of armor. Slapping on 7" of deck armor or 16" of belt armor would be complete overkill in any RTW2 game I have played. These ships can't improve on underwater protection, making them just as vulnerable to aerial torpedo attack as a battlecruiser. As far as I have seen the AI builds carriers, not super battleships and carriers in RTW2 appear to be the perfect counter to a super battleship, just as they were in real life. For myself, I'd take the money for all that excess steel and build another carrier, but then everyone has their own goals and style of play. I completely agree. I have built an early of 20s (commissioned in 1924) as UK starting 1920 four battlecruisers 39800 tons with 12.5" inclined belt, 3.5" deck armour, 4x2x15" guns and speed of 30 knots. They was still important part of fleet 30 years later. Their FC, AA guns and secondary guns were regularly upgraded, they got even one moderate refit for 38M in 1941 upgrading their engines and increasing their deck armour to 4.5" with decrease of speed to 29 knots. None of them was lost and they were usually most important ships in fleet because of their speed and being as separate scout force. Their costs were only 161M, all upgrades lifetime costs were 57 M, so for 218M I had ship useful for 3 decades. There were in no more danger than much modern fast battleship with 55000 tons. Later they were part of carrier escort force and they were excellent for that job. At time of airforce a little armour was not so important and if you have aircover their is no diference.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 29, 2019 11:19:58 GMT -6
I have to assume you guys are playing RTW2 with no aircraft carriers because as long as I have a few carriers I have no problem taking out the enemy battleline with rebuilt 1920s era BBs with 12" of armor. In the game from which Indiana came, my full 1950 battle line is composed of two 29,000t 3x2x15" and four 3x2x15" 30,000t battlecruisers commissioned 1915-1919, three 36,500t 2x4x14" fast battleships commissioned 1921, three 40,000t 2x4x15" fast battleships commissioned 1926, three 40,000t 4&3x16" fast battleships commissioned 1928, three 40,000t 2x4x16" fast battleships commissioned 1930, one 40,000t 2x4x16" fast battleship commissioned 1931, four 41,000t 2x4x16" fast battleships commissioned 1935-1936, and three 45,000t 3x3x15" fast battleships commissioned 1946-1948 (three 37,200t 2x4x14" fast battleships were commissioned in 1925, but one was sunk by a submarine in 1932 and the remaining pair were scrapped when the new 15" battleships commissioned). That makes 26 battleships and battlecruisers in service in 1950, 19 of which commissioned prior to 1932. How much older is your battle fleet?
I also have fourteen aircraft carriers (3x 90-plane, 3x 84-plane, and 4x 48-plane CVs plus four 28-plane CVLs) in service, all commissioned since 1934, with eight more (2x 90-plane CVs and 6x 32-plane CVLs) under construction; eight older carriers (4x 36-plane CVs converted from old CAs and 4x 24-plane CVLs converted from large AVs) served through the 1920s but were withdrawn in the 1930s for being too slow to serve with the new carriers and fast battleships. The four small 48-plane CVs were likely a mistake - probably should've been either a smaller number of larger CVs or or a similar number of smaller CVLs - but I decided I wanted a quick one-for-one replacement of the CVs converted from old CAs and was about to get started on a cruiser program.
|
|